Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 31.03.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.71/2009 registered at Police Station Special Cell by which the respondents were discharged of offence under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCOCA').

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that Vipin Sharma (R-1) arrested in Case FIR No.263/08 under Sections 420/406/506/467/471/120-B IPC read with Section 12 Passports Act Police Station Lajpat Nagar was known for his notorious criminal activities and was involved in 22 criminal cases of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation etc. registered at various Police Stations in Delhi, Haryana and Punjab. It was further alleged that he and his associates (R-2 to R-6) collectively ran an 'organized crime syndicate' at D-111, Defence Colony, New Delhi and in furtherance of their activities, cheated various persons in different States to gain pecuniary benefits. By their illegal activities, they earned huge wealth in Delhi and NCR. The courts of competent jurisdiction have already taken cognizance of the offences including cases registered vide FIR No.240/2004 under Section 308/342/420/506/34 IPC PS Defence Colony; FIR No.595/2005 under Section 406/420/120-B IPC, PS Defence Colony and many others in which the punishment is more than three years against the respondents during the last ten years. Previous criminal prosecutions failed to bring about any reformation in them. Their unabated criminal activities prejudicial to the interest of public peace and tranquility continued. R-1 to R-6 who are related to each other have continued their activities jointly and singly by running the syndicate. From the nefarious acts and designs of the respondents, it is evident that they are desperate criminals and have cheated innocent people. To curb the menace of the 'organized crime syndicate' and in order to keep peace and tranquility in the society, a proposal for initiating the investigation under Section 3 MCOCA as extended to Delhi was put up before the competent authority. During the course of investigation and after the arrest of the respondents various pan cards, mobile Sim cards, Visa Debit Cards, passports and fake work Visas were recovered besides other articles including one laptop computer and printer used for making and printing fake visas and other travel documents etc. by R-6 on the direction of R-1 and other syndicate members. The prosecution further alleged that 14 bank accounts of respondents having total transactions ranging from `1,10,200/- to `1,83,35,093/- in various banks were found. Initially, Honey Sharma (R-2) avoided her arrest and was declared Proclaimed Offender. During the pendency of the case, R-1 and R-4 planned to flee from judicial custody at Ludhiana. From the details of the cases in which accused persons were involved/wanted/PO, it was evident that the existing law was not sufficient to deliver justice to the victims. Provisions of MCOCA were invoked against them.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the impugned discharge order cannot be sustained as the State was not afforded opportunity to lead evidence to prove the allegations including validity of the sanction. The trial court erred in analyzing the evidence minutely on merits at the stage of consideration of charge. Respondents' counsel justifying the impugned order urged that there was no material to invoke the stringent provisions of MCOCA as allegations against the respondents of committing offences of cheating and forgery could be dealt with by regular courts. It was highlighted that the object of MCOCA is fundamentally to curb the organized crime only when it is a serious threat to the society. The crime syndicates generate illegal wealth by contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contraband, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering etc. The illegal wealth accumulated due to these activities has a serious adverse effect on the economic fabric of the country. It is further urged that there cannot be an 'organized crime syndicate' among respondent Nos.1 to 6 who all are the family members. The prosecution was unable to bring any material on record as to who was actually running the 'syndicate' and how all the respondents were its members. Only broad perspective of the matter was that as per the prosecution allegations, the respondents used to send people abroad allegedly on bogus Visas thereby committing the offence of forgery, cheating, breach of trust etc. There was no violence or threat of violence, intimidation or coercion as contemplated under Section 2(e) of MCOCA. The alleged offences are petty in nature and there was no loss to the Government exchequer. It was further urged that the respondents have either been acquitted or discharged in many cases; some cases have already been compounded. In pending cases, the respondents have been granted bail. The respondents have duly accounted for the assets obtained by them. Reliance has been placed on different authorities i.e. Rajjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 294; Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 242; State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr.(2007) 4 SCC 171; Ram Bhai Natha Bhai Gadhvi & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat with Criminal Appeal No.162/1997 (1997) 7 SCC 744; State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty (2012) 10 SCC 561; Hitender Vishnu Thakur & Ors.Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602; and, State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Kahlil Ahmed in Crl.Rev.P.No.42/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.975/2012.

5. Allegations against the respondents primarily were that they cheated various persons over a span of a decade at various places on false representation to send them abroad prompting them to part with their hard earned money. Undoubtedly, various cases in Delhi, Punjab and Haryana were registered against the respondents in this regard. List of such 25 pending criminal cases was annexed in Crl.M.A.No.796/2014 in Bail Appl. No.15566/2013. It reveals that in case FIR Nos.592/02, 595/05, 104/07, 67/02, and 521/08, the matter have been compromised/compounded resulting in acquittal of the accused therein. In other cases, they have been granted bail. In case FIR Nos.104, 105 and 106/2007 registered at PS Rahon, Nawa Shehar, Punjab, under Section 420 IPC, by judgments dated 07.03.2014, R-1 has been convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine `10,000/- each. On perusal of bail orders in other cases, it transpires that respondents were granted anticipatory/regular bail after they agreed to return the complete/partial amount received from the complainants therein. It is also not disputed that earlier R-2 (Honey Sharma) w/o Vipin Sharma (R-1) was declared Proclaimed Offender. Subsequently, supplementary charge-sheet was filed after her arrest. By an order dated 02.11.2012, her bail application was dismissed by this Court. Her Petition being W.P.(Crl.) No.169/2012 was dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated 07.12.2012. All the contentions raised in the instant proceedings were subject matter of bail application which did not find favour with the courts. Learned Public Prosecutor emphasized in those proceedings that R-2 was member of 'organized crime syndicate' along with her husband, brothers and brothers-in-law. The 'syndicate' was involved in 31 cases including attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust and the offences under the Passports Act etc. registered in various Police Stations in Delhi, Haryana and Punjab. It was also informed that R-2 was declared Proclaimed Offender in 7 out of 11 cases and she could be arrested after about two years of registration of cases. In FIR No.263/08, the complaint Mr.Harish Idnani, husband of real sister of Honey Sharma (R-2), alleged that she was actually involved in activities of 'organized crime syndicate' and had not even spared her own blood relations. Complainant alleged that the offences had been committed by Honey Sharma (R-2) either jointly or individually for pecuniary benefits in which they had used violence and criminal intimidation besides committing cheating, forgery etc. According to prosecution, the accused persons as a syndicate, had allegedly cheated an amount of Rs. 4.5 crores from various victims. It was pointed out that R-2 had five bank accounts in her name as well as aliases showing transactions worth `1,83,35,093/-. These accounts were in the name of R- 2 and that of one fake Honey Bhardwaj. In order to conceal her identity, R-2 got a PAN card issued in the name of Honey Bhardwaj. In her income tax returns filed between the years 2007 and 2010, she declared gross receipt of `26,84,770/- and gross profit `8,43,030/- as against her actual total transaction of `1,83,35,093/-. She owned two cars; Audi A4 car bearing No. DL-3CAY-0130 registered in her name and Maruti Swift bearing No. HR-51-AD-3187 in the name of Honey Bhardwaj. Various passports containing fake visa stamps of New Zealand were recovered from her house and the car being driven by her husband at the time of her arrest. There were allegations in other FIR under Section 506 IPC. These facts led this court to dismiss R-2's bail application. These facts are not under challenge.

XXX XXX XXX XXX

67. To apply the provisions of MCOCA something more in the nature of coercive acts and violence in required to be spelt out so as to bring the unlawful activity complained of within the definition of „organized crime‟ in Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA.

XXX XXX XXX XXX

16. Though simplicitor offences of forgery and cheating committed more than once would not come within the ambit of "organized crime" however the same would not be applicable to a case where cheating and forgery are done continuously so as to rig/manipulate the results of the examinations. Their Lordships in Lalit Somdatta Nagpal (supra) held that violation of Sales Tax and Excise Laws are not intended to be the basis of application of the provisions of MCOCA and to apply the said provisions something in the nature of coercive acts and violence is required to be spelt out so as to bring the unlawful activity complained of within the definition of "organized crime.